Yup, it kinda sounds like "I'm a tough guy and if anybody messes with me I'll just kick their ass".

For the record, 40 years ago I trained at least twice a week for years. Been there done that. I know for a fact I would lose a gun fight.

I've been thinking about your post. When I became involved 30 years ago, there was no such thing as MMA or even a complete self defense system. The thought process of the day was that (fill in martial art style here) is the best way to defend yourself and all other forms of self defense were crap. Over the last three decades, the "self defense" aspec of martial arts has been replaced with a competitive fighting system that samples from any discipline that it feels can accomplish the goal of winning a competition fight. The downside of this trend has been an extream softening the discipline and hierarchy of the dojo/dojang/gym. This lack of discipline may be producing people who can competitively fight but it is doing nothing for character developement or for the progression of good vs. evil in our society.

I've been thinking about your post. When I became involved 30 years ago, there was no such thing as MMA or even a complete self defense system. The though process of the day was that (fill in martial art style here) is the best way to defend yourself and all other forms of self defense were crap. Over the last three decades, the "self defense" aspec of martial arts has been replaced with a competitive fighting system that samples from any discipline that it feels can accomplish the goal of winning a competition fight. The downside of this trend has been an extream softening the discipline and hierarchy of the dojo/dojang/gym. This lack of discipline may be producing people who can competitively fight but it is doing nothing for character developement or for the progression of good vs. evil in our society.

And you don't understand how anecdotal evidence is just that, evidence. You can't completly discredit my argument simply by saying it isn't true because I have observed it. In fact, many have observed this behavior because it is part of the human condition. Now if you want to go get your big boy pants on and debate this topic intellegently, I'm game. Before you come back, make sure you understand the difference between a hypothesis, theory, and a fact. Without that understanding I might as well debate this subject with my dog.

As far as "voting with your wallet", I support that, however, there is no reason to get "butthurt" about the owner of a private property making any rule they desire. The owner of the property has made a calculated decision about the No Gun rule and how it will effect his revenue stream. They have decided that any loss of revenue from the rule will be made up by not suffering losses due to poor firearms discipline or worse. If a person is that concerned about being assulted at an offroad park that they MUST carry a gun, it is probably in their best interest to avoid park of concern all together (a win/win for all involved).

And all evidence is created equal.... Riiiigt.

I can't debate someone who clearly made a hasty generalization about firearm owners and then proceeded to justify it by saying its a personal opinion and observation. Jeezus man, look up confirmation bias.

Back to your previously scheduled programming, I'm done teaching logic for the day. Although I didn't get to my lecture on validity, soundness, and cogency, which is really quite compelling if I do say so myself.

I can't debate someone who clearly made a hasty generalization about firearm owners and then proceeded to justify it by saying its a personal opinion and observation. Jeezus man, look up confirmation bias.

Back to your previously scheduled programming, I'm done teaching logic for the day. Although I didn't get to my lecture on validity, soundness, and cogency, which is really quite compelling if I do say so myself.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can't believe you can't wrap your mind around what I'm saying. You are trying to make yourself look intelligent without putting anything on the table to refute me. Prove me wrong, please. I would love to think all gun owners are gee wiz friendly people who have no malice on their mind at all or that no people carry a gun to boost their ego/confidence.

Since you must be new to the whole intellegent debate scene, here are a few logical fallicies that you may be tripping over:

Personal Incredulity
Because you found something difficult to understand, or are unaware of how it works, you made out like it's probably not true.

Burden of Proof
You said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove.The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning.

Composition/Division
You assumed that one part of something has to be applied to all, or other, parts of it; or that the whole must apply to its parts.Often when something is true for the part it does also apply to the whole, or vice versa, but the crucial difference is whether there exists good evidence to show that this is the case. Because we observe consistencies in things, our thinking can become biased so that we presume consistency to exist where it does not.

Black-or-White
You presented two alternative states as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist.Also known as the false dilemma, this insidious tactic has the appearance of forming a logical argument, but under closer scrutiny it becomes evident that there are more possibilities than the either/or choice that is presented. Binary, black-or-white thinking doesn't allow for the many different variables, conditions, and contexts in which there would exist more than just the two possibilities put forth. It frames the argument misleadingly and obscures rational, honest debate.

Begging the Question
You presented a circular argument in which the conclusion was included in the premise.This logically incoherent argument often arises in situations where people have an assumption that is very ingrained, and therefore taken in their minds as a given. Circular reasoning is bad mostly because it's not very good.

Now this next one here you need to pay close attention to and how I presented my original statement. Note that I did not state my observations were fact but instead observations. I did not say ALL gun owners are alike in my statement but only those that get butthurt because they can't have a gun with them at all times. Also, if you go back to my original post, I say at the very end that it is my PERSONAL OBSERVATION and nothing more, a hypotheosis in a way but you could also call it a theory.

Anecdotal
You used a personal experience or an isolated example instead of a sound argument or compelling evidence.It's often much easier for people to believe someone's testimony as opposed to understanding complex data and variation across a continuum. Quantitative scientific measures are almost always more accurate than personal perceptions and experiences, but our inclination is to believe that which is tangible to us, and/or the word of someone we trust over a more 'abstract' statistical reality.

I think this one really applies to your stance tonight.

Strawman
You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.

And lastly even if how I presented my argument is flawed, it doesn't make it wrong.

The Fallacy Fallacy
You presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong.It is entirely possibly to make a claim that is false yet argue with logical coherency for that claim, just as is possible to make a claim that is true and justify it with various fallacies and poor arguments.

So there is a little information for you to digest and hone your debating skills. If you wish to intelligently debate the topic, start a thead (i.e., Nuggets is full of shit!) and I will compile scientific evidence to support my position that a certain percentage of gun owners carry because they want to feel strong and powerful and not just to defend themselves. Or you can walk away and preserve your dignity.

I am going to finish my xj this weekend I hope. I was looking at the website to see what time they are open. I have wheeled there maybe 6 times and am very close. However under the rules it says no firearms on the property. I know some people who work their are on here. Please tell me that this will be changed and that you support our 2nd amendment. I would hate if I had to travel to a park that is farther away to wheel because of this. Maybe nobody has noticed. I know I always carry when there. There must be a misunderstanding RIGHT!!???

It is private property without public access. You have to be allowed in no different than your own home. Maybe I will choose to still wheel there and carry. Not about to post something like that on a public forum.

If I owned Bundy Hill I would ban this a-hole for advocating carrying a gun at an organization that has clearly posted the rules.

My point, and my only point, has been that you made a hasty generalization about gun owners, based on anecdote.

Now, if your standard of evidence is only anecdote, than by all means, make your judgement, but I happen to have a higher standard of evidence.

Now if that point is lost on you, thats not my problem; and I surely have not attempted to "make myself look intelligent" as I am sure that only one of us have ever actually studied logic and their name doesn't end in uggets.

Now that you have wasted quite a bit of time researching logical fallacies, to what end I have no idea, and worked yourself into an obvious tizzy (as evidenced by your presumed google search and paste of "logical fallacies"), enjoy your evening.

If I owned Bundy Hill I would ban this a-hole for advocating carrying a gun at an organization that has clearly posted the rules.

I had not read the rules before now. Ignorance is no excuse I know that. To say I am advocating illegally carrying a firearm is far from the truth. You can twist words to fit your opinion most liberals will. I also stated that maybe I will no longer support them. I left it open and very unclear for many reasons. You calling me am asshole only goes to shows your ignorance. Why was that needed? Are you so uneducated on this subject that the best response you could manage was an insult? I have states multiple time that I support their right to not allow firearms. They pay the taxes and upkeep on the place not me.

I respect Bundys stance on the issue. I personally don't think there will be any gun violence in an offroad park. Seems like it's a pretty tight community and everybody SEEMS all there. If you carry everywhere, maybe in your vehicle and not on you, why not be able to keep it in a locked vehicle in the parking lot? Like previously stated, you never know what is going to happen on your way to the park. ie: stop for gas and get robbed at gunpoint? Anything can happen. So having to leave your pistol at home for a day trip to Bundy? Hmm I don't know about that one.

It's like my mama always says, ''better safe than-than sorry''

Quote:

Originally Posted by whiterhino

There are all sorts of these discussions on the gun forums. disclaimer; I have no legal expertise.
If you feel the need to carry to and from a location, then do so. If you are going to a place that does not want weapons on their property, you have a few options.
1) you comply
2) don't comply. In reality, they can't press charges, they can only ask you to leave. If you refuse to leave, then they can press charges.
3) Convert to transport mode and lock your weapon, unloaded out of site.
4) Leave it locked in transport mode in your tow rig, if you have one.
5) Keep your mouth shut and don't ask these types of questions on an open forum.

Personally, I feel that if a person feels they have the need to carry while in transit, it would be nice if a place of business like BH would changed their policy to "no loaded firearms". Then a person could unload, lock up and be fine.

Do I carry all the time? No, probably less than 50% of the time. Do I like to carry when away from home where being broken down could land me in an uncomfortable situation? Yes.

If I owned Bundy Hill I would ban this a-hole for advocating carrying a gun at an organization that has clearly posted the rules.

Call these people names and ask for them to be banned also. Or are you one of those people who ignore facts and evidence that may make you unpopular? Do you have a back bone? What do you think of Jim's response? He is a well liked person here who always contributes to the good of the sport an forum. Call him out, show your ignorance little boy.